Introduction:
In a landmark judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Smt. K. Hamakshi v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petition AT No. 2139 of 2021), delivered on March 17, 2025, ruled that a daughter-in-law is an integral part of the family and is entitled to compassionate appointment upon the death of the sole breadwinner. The case revolved around Smt. K. Hamakshi, the petitioner, was the daughter-in-law of S. Kullayamma, a P.H. Worker in Rayadurg Municipality. Kullayamma, who had lost her husband and both her sons, was the only earning member of the family and supported the petitioner along with her two sons and a daughter. Upon Kullayamma’s death while in service, the petitioner applied for a job on compassionate grounds but was denied because the government order (G.O.) did not recognize daughters-in-law as family members eligible for such appointments. Initially, the government had issued a G.O. allowing only the wife, son, or unmarried daughter of the deceased government servant to be considered for compassionate appointments. A later amendment expanded the scope to include the deceased’s brother, sister, and widowed daughter but still excluded the daughter-in-law. Aggrieved by this exclusion, the petitioner challenged the rejection of her claim, arguing that it was arbitrary and violated Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.
Arguments:
The petitioner’s case was based on the argument that after a woman gets married, she becomes an integral part of her husband’s family. Since she had lost her husband and was solely dependent on her mother-in-law, she should be considered for a compassionate appointment to support herself and her children. She also pointed out that the exclusion of daughters-in-law from the purview of compassionate appointments was discriminatory, especially since other extended family members, such as brothers and widowed daughters, were included. She contended that denying her the appointment defeated the very purpose of compassionate employment, which is to prevent the bereaved family from falling into financial distress. Additionally, she submitted a No Objection Certificate from her mother-in-law’s younger son’s wife, proving that there was no other claimant for the position.
The respondent authorities defended their decision by stating that the government order governing compassionate appointments did not include daughters-in-law within the definition of “family.” They argued that the eligibility criteria were framed to ensure that only the closest dependents of the deceased employee received employment benefits, and the exclusion of daughters-in-law was intentional. The respondents contended that granting such a benefit to a daughter-in-law would set a precedent that could lead to an influx of similar claims, potentially disrupting the employment framework of the government. They further asserted that the policy intended to support direct dependents such as spouses, children, and siblings who had no other means of financial support.
Judgement:
After examining the arguments, the Andhra Pradesh High Court presided over by Justice Sumathi Jagadam, delivered a progressive and inclusive ruling. The Court observed that compassionate appointments are meant to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased government employee who was the sole breadwinner. Justice Jagadam noted that when a woman gets married, she becomes a member of her husband’s family. Conversely, when she is widowed, she does not cease to be a part of that family. Therefore, a daughter-in-law should have the same rights as other dependents when it comes to compassionate appointments. The Court highlighted that excluding daughters-in-law while including other extended family members such as widowed daughters, brothers, and sisters was arbitrary and lacked a rational basis. The judgment emphasized that the primary objective of compassionate appointments is to prevent destitution, and this principle should not be ignored based on a narrow and rigid definition of “family.”
The Court also rejected the respondent’s argument that including daughters-in-law would lead to an overwhelming number of claims. It observed that each case must be assessed on its own merits, and only those who were genuinely dependent on the deceased employee should be considered. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had provided sufficient evidence to prove her financial dependence on her deceased mother-in-law, and no other family member had opposed her appointment. Justice Jagadam further clarified that while compassionate appointments cannot be granted as a matter of right, they should be extended to those who truly need them to survive. The Court held that the petitioner’s exclusion violated the principles of equality and social justice enshrined in the Constitution.
As a result, the Court quashed the rejection order issued by the authorities and directed them to reconsider the petitioner’s application for a compassionate appointment. It held that the government must interpret the term “family” in an inclusive manner to ensure that individuals who are genuinely dependent on the deceased employee are not left without support. The Court further advised the state government to amend its policy to explicitly include daughters-in-law in the list of eligible beneficiaries for compassionate appointments.
This ruling marks a significant step toward gender equality and social justice in government employment policies. By recognizing the daughter-in-law as an integral member of the family, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has reinforced the principle that policies meant for financial support should be guided by the reality of dependency rather than rigid definitions of family structures. The judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications, encouraging other states to adopt a more inclusive approach to compassionate appointments.